- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
20mph sign (CC licensed by EdinburghGreens via Flickr)“Any road which isn’t safe for pedestrians and cyclists should be 20mph”: Cycling Rebellion says speed limit plan “doesn’t go far enough”, as council urged to “be brave” and introduce default 20mph zones
Cycling campaigners have slammed a council’s plans to restrict the proposed roll-out of 20mph zones to streets which have been deemed particularly dangerous or where serious injuries have occurred, and have called on the local authority to be “bold” in its bid to combat the climate emergency and “act now” by introducing a default 20mph speed limit on all residential roads.
Last month, the deputy leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole (BCP) Council announced that it was the local authority’s “intention” to introduce a “default” 20mph limit in built-up areas throughout the conurbation, similar to the widespread implementation of lowered speed limits in Wales last autumn.
The announcement came three months after the Liberal Democrat-controlled council’s environment portfolio holder Andy Hadley pledged that a full consultation would take place before a decision was made on the introduction of the 20mph zones, which deputy leader Millie Earl said would be “beneficial to people walking, wheeling, and cycling and… benefit public health and air quality”.
However, a report by BCP Council officers this week raised concerns about the council’s ambitions to implement the reduced speed limit on all urban residential roads and high streets, noting that, “although desirable”, a “blanket” 20mph limit would cost more than £300m to introduce.
Instead, the council officers advised that the local authority should prioritise which roads will be subject to the lowered limit, based on how dangerous they are perceived to be or the number of collisions or serious injuries which have occurred on them in recent years.
Dorset Police, for instance, has told the council that it “will not be able to supply additional resources to monitor and enforce” any speed reduction plan, but that it would support a 20mph zone on streets where “clear evidence” indicates that the scheme would lead to a fall in collisions.
The report also noted that by introducing a default 20mph limit, some motorists will believe that their freedoms are being “compromised”.
“The profile of people who proportionately drive more – men, middle aged groups, people without a disability, white British, heterosexuals and Christians – will generally consider their freedoms associated with driving are being compromised, though individual views may vary,” the report said.
In response to the officers’ conclusion that a “blanket” 20mph restriction on all urban roads cannot be implemented, Poole-based cycling and environmental campaigner Adam Osman has criticised what he believes is the latest “silly” barrier to progress, arguing that the council needs to be “brave” to make the roads safer and combat climate change.
“We are campaigning for 20mph as a default speed limit rather than each road being individually picked for 20mph. What the council has proposed is not tenable,” Osman, the founder of Cycling Rebellion, an off-shoot of the more widely known Extinction Rebellion, told the Daily Echo.
“All residential streets, roads with narrow pavements, high streets such as Winton High Street should be included.
“If they removed parking spaces along Winton High Street and expanded the space for pedestrians and cyclists, that would be great – although we don’t want to take away people’s right to drive there. Basically, any road which isn’t safe for pedestrians and cyclists should be 20mph.”
Osman also questioned the local authority’s claimed figure of £300m for a complete roll-out of the scheme and argued that constantly changing speed limits and road signs “would cause more mistakes” by motorists.
“We can look at the information and the data, there are plenty of locations to choose from. There is the straight road going to the university where there have been cyclists killed on the roads,” he said.
“So if there has been an accident, it would be a no-brainer. Most junctions you can apply logic to decide on what it should be.
“There is an environmental emergency, we have to act this decade. It feels silly to halt progress this much. The council needs to be brave and act now.”
In October, Osman and Cycling Rebellion organised a group ride to call for the introduction of 20mph limits and safer infrastructure for “the huge amount of families who want to cycle”, while urging the council to make “radical changes” to ensure that the area is “liveable”.
“We have to think about making cycling for everyone,” Osman said at the time. “You need to look at the current infrastructure and ask yourself, would you feel comfortable with your kids cycling there?”
“Because that is a safe town to live in, one that accommodates every form of transport. That’s why we’re riding today, to show the huge amount of families in BCP who want to cycle, and that we need to make big changes to make it liveable. We’re calling on the implementation of a 20mph speed limit in BCP to make BCP safe for families.”
While BCP Council’s apparent scaling back of its 20mph plans this week has attracted the ire of cycling campaigners, as we reported last month the scheme in general also came under fire from across the political aisle, as local Conservative politicians rushed to condemn the council’s “out of the blue” and “extremely worrying” announcement.
“Many of us warned that voting for these parties would see a return to anti-car measures, and this announcement… shows that we were right,” Conservative councillor Phil Broadhead said.
Meanwhile, Poole’s Conservative MP Sir Robert Syms also added: “I would support 20mph near schools but a general policy I think is nuts. It is unpopular in London and in Wales and it will upset my constituents if implemented.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- perce 3 hours 2 min ago
Oh god is he still here? Still not found a publisher for his stories?
- chrisonabike 4 hours 34 min ago
You've been quoted in the article as being concerned "about the safety of cyclist and vehicles”....
- S.E. 9 hours 16 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 9 hours 41 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 8 hours 48 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 9 hours 51 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 10 hours 53 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 11 hours 18 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
- chrisonabike 11 hours 31 min ago
Replace them all with Bromptons and they'd take up zero space within days or even hours, as they are all relocated elsewhere. To eBay or possibly...
- Andrewbanshee 12 hours 2 min ago
Where I live we are experiencing a lot of housing development on small and large plots of land. These developers don't seem to have problems...
Add new comment
71 comments
The way to implement it is to make an announcement (or put it in the manifesto), then offer a 2 year consultation period allowing opposition and appeals to be made and heard.
Implement then sit back and wait for the right whingers to trigger themselves when they realise that they've missed their chance to oppose, through laziness. Some of their justifications are pure gold.
I'd rather the default 20mph than the random positioning that appears to happen in england.
That's exactly what Welsh Labour did in their 2019 manifesto. They were subsiquently voted in and when they had the nerve to actually impliment someting they promised to do in their manifesto, the poeple who voted them in complained!
I appreciate this is not a dis-interested source, but it's better than that - before Labour (and I think Plaid?) put it in their manifestos, the original debate on 20mph in Wales was tabled by the Tories, and in 2020 had (most of) their support: https://www.20splenty.org/w_faq04
£300,000,000? Clearly absolute nonsense. In a linked report the council says it would have to ask government for £149k to "start rolling out" 20mph limits (https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24129053.council-needs-149k-start-rolling-20mph-limits/) , but to do it in full would cost 2000 times that? Get oop t'street.
Its utter nonsense. The Welsh 20mph rollout has cost £34m for a whole country so far....
20mph speed limits in towns and villages are a good thing for everyone. More please.
I feel like I speak for most of us when I say "fuck em". This isn't about the twats of society who think a speed limit is infringing on their liberties. As to the cost, i'm sure that you could recoup a lot of those costs with a few months of heavy monitoring and fines.
The fact these are being put in place in pedestrian and residential areas means that breaking the speed limit should automatically be considered dangerous driving and incur a large fine.
Its about time we prioritised peoples lives and safety over some bizarre idea that stopping people driving dangerously is somehow taking their liberties away from them. Taking someones life is taking something away. Ruining someones health is taking away their freedom and liberty.
Absolutely right about schemes like this paying for themselves with the right approach to enforcement and fines for pure incompetence behind the wheel.
The voice of common sense, except that phrase has been taken over by the DM / Conservative / Trumpist nutcases who are so far from common sense it is getting to gaslighting stage.
i love the objection based on “The profile of people who proportionately drive more – men, middle aged groups, people without a disability, white British, heterosexuals and Christians". Every one of those characteristics applies to me, including the driving. I still say go for the 20mph
All villages in Oxfordshire have been 20mph for about 12 months now. Not much objection because it's only the villages. That's the way to do it.
I noticed this when nipping out for a ride at the end of a day WFH, North from caversham into the Chilterns, loads of new and shiny 20 roundalls.
Every town and parish council in Oxfordshire has the choice to ask for 20mph limits. Lots have taken the county council up on the offer.
Not all villages in Oxfordshire I'm afraid. We still have drivers going 50mph + on our 30mph roads.
This is quite ludicrous. How about when people want to walk or cycle betwen villages or people who live outside of the village want to walk or cycle into the village? At present this generally means cycling or walking on a 60mph road which has poor visibility and no pavements and many drivers who think that dangerous driving is acceptable, if your within the speed limit.
This leaves many people with the only options being a private motor vehicle or relying on extremely spotty public transport.
A lot of NSL roads should be lower and it could be done via legislative change as to maximum speed on an NSL per vehicle type but that would be a war on motorists.
Which ever way I go home, it requires NSL with no footpaths. At one point, the County Council said the main road was ok to walk to secondary school and would not provide a bus pass.
Its utterly mind boggling how many roads in the UK shouldn't be driven at more than 30 and probably at less than 20 in many places and yet they are 60s.
True. As I understand it, 'national speed limit' on many rural lanes means "we can't be bothered to define a speed limit as it's common sense" whereas a great many people seem to understand it as "I can drive along this single track lane with blind bends at 60 mph - the Govt said it so blame them!"
This is my current favourite
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pFpjW5wGKi2S6uaQ7
I think you are confusing ludicrous with "its a good start". It seems unreasonable to target rural areas with blanket 20mph zone without a lot of prior research first. Built up areas - exactly the opposite.
It's interesting that proportionately more people without a disability drive than with a disability. It puts the lie to the claim that LTNs discriminate against those with a disability.
The only time motorists seem to give a toss about the disabled, the elderly and those needing to visit a hospital is when a council proposes an LTN.
I came across a motorist in the local rag who wants to ban everything from the roads except cars and pedestrians. He didn't care that disabled people couldn't get around and he also wanted to close the charity sector ! So double whammy.
But I was the lyrca lout, woke extremist !
It would be funny if it wasn't so depressing wouldn't it. I suggested that people should have to take a cycling proficiency course or at least be required to ride on our roads before they are given a driving licence and someone suggested that was an awful idea because "some disabled people wouldn't be able to do it".
Its like debating with idiots who think they have a gotcha when they can point at caveats or exemptions you would require. Society works around people who the normal rules cannot apply to. They don't abandon the rules entirely simply because they can't apply equally to every single person.
Don't forget their faux concern for emergency vehicles getting delayed (which has been debunked, anyway)
There are still people who believe that emergency vehicles will have to stick to 20 when on call !
Where does this £300m number come from, and what has been added in?
The cost for the whole of Wales was £32m.
But I enjoyed the spectre of another Conservative Councillor panicking at numbers in the polls, with his head up his butt smelling his own BS.
I would imagine that the £300 million is an economic impact. The Welsh scheme was calculated to have a net negative impact in the billions so adjusted for population (3 million Vs 450,000) it's probably not far off.
To put this in context the if BCP council followed national trends there would be an expected 2.5 pedestrian deaths per year. I would expect that 20 mph zones would have a pretty trivial impact on overall accident stats not least because a lot of the accidents will be on roads where there wouldn't be a 20 limit/involve an HGV/involve a pissed pedestrian etc.
So we are talking about slowing journeys for a few hundred thousand people every day to save a single life every few years statistically. As a general rule in transport design the way you make journeys fast isn't to make the fast bits faster but to get rid of the slow bits hence driving at 20 Vs 30 makes more difference than driving at 100 on the motorway hence slowing down residential roads makes quite a big difference to journey times which has a significant economic value when you force millions of people to do it every day.
In a typically British cargo culty way we've looked at the people in the flat countries and gone "I like those low speed neighbourhoods". Without actually looking at the actual street design that makes a 30kph speed limit a formality and conveniently forgetting that the people in the low countries have dense multi-lane highway networks that were built in parallel to the cycling networks and pedestrianised streets in cities and is where all.yhose cars on city streets displaced to. The Dutch drive more than British people in addition to cycling much further.
Cycling (and motoring) advocates should advocate for bypasses, bus lanes and cycle lanes, it would make us all richer. (and before someone says something about profit and capitalism or similar an increase in productivity and customer surpluses just mean that there is more time/money to go around for whatever cause floats your boat.)
I agree we're terrible about adapting things from elsewhere. This topic came up before and it was pointed out that yes - the *better* way to change speeds is through street redesign.
However if merely changing signs has lowered speeds (albeit not perfectly), then it ... has? Which the numbers say has actually happened, in the Welsh case [1] [2] and (to a lesser extent) in Edinburgh etc.
I bet fixing all those street designs (which will take decades) would have an economic boost far beyond any perceived economic losses of getting places five minutes later.
*Pedantry* Cycle lanes won't make anybody but the council's paint-and-signs-provider pals richer. A network of proper separate cycle paths / tracks on the other hand are definitely an economic win.
I'm cautious about the bypass bit because "where people can drive, they drive" / induced demand is a thing. But perhaps some rationalisation?
You're right though - we have a lot to address in the UK. Generally this is mostly done by heroic work at the language level ("cycle superhighways" / "ground-breaking" / "world-leading"). Doing anything more than tweaks and fudge would require actual change (and more than other places). That will cause lots of people to break out the pitchforks because it's still very good here for driving. I'd say a crucial difference between the UK and e.g. NL (not knowledgeable about Scandinavia, Seville etc.) is the dire and disconnected state of public transport in the UK - compare NL's quantity and quality. That could otherwise pick up some transport slack.
I was making an argument for substantial investment in infrastructure for all modes and actually integrating it into a proper plan held by a body with a long term agenda and connection to local people. E.g. Local councils need their own bodies with proper capabilities to do planning and engineering.
The point about by-passes is that you free road space next to where people live and work to allocate them to active travel and public transport. Give the direct route to active travel.
Then assign the indirect bypass route to cars, it will actually be faster as cars are very fast when they don't have to stop all the time. The by-pass will fill up but that is less of an issue if people don't live next to it (in the long term emissions are going away and roads last essentially for ever) and less likely if the active and public options are faster/more frequent.
We need to do "all of the above" because 1: Like it or not cars are 85% of passenger miles. 2: We need the social licence to build roads by building cycle infrastructure and vice versa. Both swampy and gammon need to be overuled by the majority.
On the cycling infrastructure front the major issues with my medium sized city is the lack of any ring roads and the fact that most cycle routes are highly in direct. I think the former could be done by getting developers to pay for it (also deals with NIMBYs as the people closest to it aren't moved in until after its built), for the latter we need to normalise stuff like flyovers/unders (proper infrastructure) for bikes it's much cheaper than doing it for cars and if your saving minutes crossing junctions vs a car this is how you get people cycling.
Long term, investment? Sounds like the opposite of now then!
AFAIK councils do have bodies and are doing their own planning and engineering. Problem is that in some cases (e.g. my city, Edinburgh) they really should have what little they have taken away from them (in Edinburgh if it's "tram" certainly - see lengthy and costly inquiry).
Whereas with active travel I'd tend to agree, they don't have capacity. So e.g. stuff takes ages because "staffing", then gets put on hold because one of the two people leaves (perhaps understandably - seeing a better future as a consultant for example).
My instinct would be to declare all councils incompetent for purposes of active travel by fiat and give it to a suitably qualified central body ("What do we want? Non-standard infra, made up on the fly! Where to we want it? In disconnected dibs and dabs all over!") HOWEVER it seems that at least in NL they do manage to get by with a more decentralised system (lengthy overview here, latter half addresses that). Perhaps that's politics and societal stuff that wouldn't translate though?
Pages